Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate

Issues Facing the Early Childhood Sector: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Today's agenda is our engagement on issues facing the early childhood sector. A number of witnesses are present, which is fantastic. We have representatives from the Association of Childhood Professionals - Ms Marian Quinn, chairperson, and Ms Anne Clarke, owner and manager of the Playaway Crèche. We have Mr. Darragh O'Connor, head of strategic organising with SIPTU, and Ms Avril Green, chairperson of SIPTU's early years national committee. From the Federation of Early Childhood Providers, we have Ms Elaine Dunne, chairperson, and Ms Sonya Duggan, a member of its sub-advisory committee. From Early Childhood Ireland, we have Ms Teresa Heeney, chief executive officer, and Ms Frances Byrne, director of policy. From the Children's Rights Alliance, we have Ms Julie Ahern, who is its legal, policy and services director, and Dr. Naomi Feely, senior researcher and policy manager. I welcome the witnesses.

I will take us through the normal housekeeping matters. For anyone joining us on Microsoft Teams, be aware that its chat function is only to be used to make us aware of any technical issues or urgent matters and should not be used to make general comments or statements during the meeting.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who is participating from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Teams to confirm whether he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus before making a contribution.

The opening statements will be followed by questions and answers. In advance of inviting the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to advise them of the following important point in respect of parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I will now run through the speaking order. We will start with Ms Quinn, followed by Mr. O'Connor, Ms Dunne, Ms Heeney and Ms Ahern. Afterwards, we will have questions and answers from members, including via Teams.

Ms Marian Quinn

I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss the issues facing the early childhood sector. When announcing his budget in September 2022, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, stated that the Government had met its target of a €1 billion investment by 2028. While the increased investment is welcome, it must be acknowledged that this is still only an investment of 0.3% of GDP in our early years sector as opposed to the average investment of 0.8% across Europe and the 1% recommended by UNICEF. This, combined with significant inflation, means that, despite increased investment, the core issues of the staffing crisis, financial instability and variable quality remain.

A competent early years system is necessary for all stakeholders. Our economy requires a childcare system that enables primary caregivers to be in employment. Families require affordable and accessible provision. Children, when attending early years services, require high-quality interactions and consistent relationships with educators who can be in the moment with children. Service providers and educators require appropriate remuneration for their work. While provision is becoming more affordable for families, this is perhaps the only target that is actually being met.

Currently, many small-to-medium providers are experiencing financial pressures due to Government policy. In 2022, we saw the introduction of core funding, which many would see as a fair, well-balanced and well-intentioned funding model. However, the funding rates were set prior to the unprecedented inflation rates that beset the country. Providers signing up to core funding were obliged to commit to a fee freeze, with the target year being set as 2021. During the height of the pandemic, providers received supports through the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, and were rightly asked to enter a voluntary fee freeze by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. As a result, providers who complied with this request now find themselves with their fees frozen at 2017 or 2018 rates while services that raised their fees are significantly more viable. The Department has refused to allow reconciliation for those whose fee structures predated the target year of 2021. This, coupled with the significant inflation rates, has left many providers in a precarious financial position. Additional investment was announced in budget 2024, but this will not be available until September, thereby requiring providers to make tough decisions regarding the operational model they offer.

The recruitment and retention of educators continues to be a major issue in the early years sector. While the historical employment regulation order, ERO, introduced pay rates for various grades of educator, these rates have not kept pace with inflation and, while welcome, were recognised as a first step towards the professional rates required to attract and retain a highly qualified and experienced workforce.

Many employers hoped that an improved ERO would be made this year and that additional funding would be invested to meet this. However, this has not happened and while the educators really need this pay increase, many employers are dreading it as it will further challenge their viability. Poor wages, lack of paid non-contact time, increased paperwork, increased parental expectations, children with complex needs, and so on, all contribute to significant difficulties in recruitment and retention within the profession.

Budget 2024 saw increased investment in the access and inclusion model. This was welcomed as a necessity for supporting inclusion, but many recognise that supports under level seven of the model will not be achievable as there are insufficient numbers of educators willing to remain in the profession to fill places and capacity will be reduced if providers reduce ratios by reducing intake of children. The impact of the recruitment crisis is not only being felt by providers but by parents all over Ireland who are finding it increasingly difficult to find childcare for their children, while endeavouring to enter the workforce. This is most strongly felt by parents of children under two.

With the announcement of further increases in the national childcare scheme, NCS, subsidies to parents, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth expressed an anticipation of an increase in demand coinciding with the increased subsidy. We recognise that capital funding is to be made available to increase capacity, which is great. However, we are in a staffing crisis so this increased capacity cannot be actualised without addressing recruitment and retention.

The Minister referred to the fact that parents can access the NCS through registered childminders. Unfortunately, to date very few childminders have registered. When they look at the experiences of their colleagues in centre-based provision, they will be very cautious about engaging with Government schemes and the myriad of conditions and administration required. The NCS is also problematic for service providers and families with regard to the restrictions and rules imposed.

The delay in implementing required supports for children from disadvantaged and marginalised families and communities is disturbing. The €4.5 million announced for September 24 is insufficient to even make a dent in terms of the supports required. If substantial investment is made in the equal participation model in next year's budget, it is likely it will be September 2025 before significant supports will be in place.

There is concern about services risk rating families and prioritising safe families who are likely to comply with the rules and are able pay increased fees where funding is reduced or removed due to rule requirements. We also need to be careful of the corporatisation of early years, where significant portions of money invested to provide high quality early years and school age childcare is actually diverted into the pockets of shareholders through international pension funds and so on. We have asked for many years that inspections be streamlined and made to be more manageable for a service. We agree with the need for inspections but find it difficult to work with many different agencies, some with conflicting requirements and findings. This is undoubtedly a reason for some of the exodus from the profession.

We take this opportunity to highlight the fact that early years services are subject to Department of Education inspections, yet we had the word "education" stripped from our title with zero consultation and are required to pay rates, despite being defined in law as educational facilities, which should be exempt from rates.

I thank members for listening. We welcome any questions they may have.

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

My name is Darragh O’Connor. I am head of strategic organising at SIPTU. I am joined by Ms Avril Green, who is an early years educator and chair of the SIPTU national early years committee. As members might know, SIPTU is the union for educators, lead educators and managers working in early childhood education and care and school age childcare. Our union represents approximately 6,000 members in community and private settings throughout Ireland.

SIPTU has a clear vision for the early years sector that is shared by many groups here today. It should be high quality, affordable and accessible. Staff should be recognised and properly rewarded and services should be financially sustainable. After years of campaigning by SIPTU and many others, we have seen some progress towards realising this vision. In September 2022, a new core funding scheme was introduced to the value of €259 million in year one. This supply-side investment is paid directly to providers and was designed to improve quality, affordability, inclusion, and sustainability. A key element of core funding is to financially support pay agreements, the first of which was implemented in September 2022. For the first time, early years educators and managers have a mechanism to improve minimum rates of pay and conditions across their profession. However, three major issues facing the early years sector have to be addressed. These include low pay and the staffing crisis, the level of State investment, and targeted funding and transparency.

Services are struggling to recruit and retain staff due to low pay. Not only is this undermining quality for children, it is also impacting on the sustainability of services, accessibility for parents, and has led to increased stress and workload for educators and managers. Clear evidence shows that low pay is by far the biggest cause of the staffing crisis. The SIPTU early years staffing survey in 2022 showed that 88% of managers and owner managers reported that low pay was the biggest or a significant obstacle to recruiting new staff. Among non-managerial staff, 49% are looking for another job, with low pay being by far the biggest push factor. This has led to unacceptable levels of staff turnover, reaching an average of 38% per year in private full day services. While the first early years pay agreement saw significant pay increases for many employees, the current proposed minimum rate of pay for a qualified early years educator is €13.65 per hour, which is €1.15 below the living wage of €14.80 per hour. Simply put, educators cannot afford to stay in their profession. Without continued improvements in pay, that recognise qualifications and experience, the staffing crisis will continue.

There has been significant State investment, which has to be acknowledged. There is growing recognition of the personal, social, and economic benefits of high quality, affordable and accessible early years. However, Ireland is starting from a very low base and still has much catching up to do. An OECD comparison of early childhood education expenditure per child shows that Ireland spent $4,790 per child in 2022, compared with an average of $11,827 for our EU peer group, which includes other high-income countries. We would need to increase expenditure by 2.5 times to reach our peer group average. This historic investment gap has been bridged by high fees and low pay. This is why SIPTU is calling for continued year on year increases in State investment, with funding for pay ring-fenced.

There is a wide range of service types within the early years sector, from small sessional services to large international chains. There is also a wide range with regard to profitability and rates of pay. A recent SIPTU survey of the accounts of selected leading early years companies showed increasing profits, dividends and directors’ remuneration. However, there is little doubt that some services are struggling. Similarly, when it comes to rates of pay, some services pay early years educators the legal minimum of €13 per hour, while many others are offering €14 to €15 per hour. This variation can be accounted for by two factors, which are the parental fee freeze based on September 2021 levels, which has resulted in a wide variation of income levels for services, and a varying cost base. To level the playing field for providers and staff with regard to pay and conditions, funding allocated in budget 2024 must be targeted towards services that need it the most. This equalisation of income will necessitate financial transparency so that public funds can be allocated in the most efficient and equitable manner.

Ms Elaine Dunne

I would like to take this time to draw members' attention to the critical challenges faced by the early years sector in Ireland. These challenges not only impact the providers themselves but also have far-reaching consequences for our staff, children and parents who rely on high-quality childcare services. Financial viability remains a paramount concern, particularly for early years services. These providers often face geographical constraints that hinder their ability to operate at full capacity to maximise benefits of core funding. Unfortunately, the current funding model fails to address the unique circumstances faced by these services, leaving many owners struggling to make critical business decisions. Consequently, we must demand that the funding model acknowledges and accommodates the diverse range of provision types, ensuring the viability and success of these small and medium providers. We would like to highlight the fact that core funding was based on findings from the Crowe report of 2020. However, data in the report was collected in 2017.

Initial reports indicated that the findings would be available within ten months. However, the report was finally published in 2020. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, stated on 19 October 2020 that the findings from the review provided "a rich and detailed understanding of the childcare market and a sound analytical underpinning to inform future funding decisions." We owe it to all parties involved who put their heart and souls into the sector day in and day out to bring forth a thriving early years sector. New services are opening, with an option to introduce realistic fee structures, as opposed to existing services, for which fees have been frozen since 2017. This results in an unequal basis for operating a similar business model. A thriving sector is attainable with equal guidelines applicable to all services regardless of business start date. Although spirits are low within the sector, a thriving sector like the one I describe is not out of reach. We need to work together for the betterment of all. Providers, staff, parents and children all need to be respectfully catered for.

Staffing challenges continue to plague our sector, making recruitment and retention increasingly difficult. One of the main contributing factors to this issue is the tendency for graduates to use the sector as a stepping stone to other career paths. This leaves providers in a constant state of flux, struggling to attract and retain qualified staff. While the introduction of the early years employment regulation order was a positive step, specific funding increases must accompany this development to ensure its effectiveness.

According to the frequently asked questions, FAQs, on budget 2024 produced by the Department, the joint labour committee, JLC, for early years services is continuing to meet in relation to possible further increases in minimum rates of pay and additional funding will be made available from September 2024, which will support any further negotiated improvements in pay through the JLC process. Moreover, the burden of new pension contributions, the introduction of the new chartered account system and increasing sick days are contributing to an already financially challenged sector.

Recently, the Department has introduced a core funding chart of accounts. This is at present adding to an already top-heavy administrative burden on managers and providers. The reporting template will only be available at the end of November and a date in mid-January has been given as a submission date signed off by accountants at an additional cost to providers. Accountants are voicing concerns regarding the duplication of financial accounts. This is adding to the ever-increasing financial and administrative burden on providers, ultimately impacting the overall availability of funds to pay both themselves and staff, resulting in viable and sustainable services. It is crucial that the Government addresses these concerns promptly, safeguarding the delivery of services and ensuring accessibility for parents.

The administrative burden placed upon providers has reached a breaking point, diverting their focus away from the children in their care. Excessive paperwork and administrative pressures have left providers drowning in a sea of red tape, leaving them with little time and energy for direct interaction with the children. We call for streamlined inspection processes and a significant reduction in paperwork requirements, allowing providers to dedicate more time and energy to their primary role of nurturing and educating young children. The toll on the mental health and well-being of providers and staff cannot be ignored. The constant scrutiny, financial uncertainty and administrative workload have left providers overwhelmed, stressed, and financially struggling. We must recognise the invaluable role they play in shaping our children's lives and strive to create an environment that fosters their well-being. It is essential that we prioritise mental health support for both providers and staff, ensuring they have the resources and assistance they need to maintain their own well-being while providing quality care to all children. The childcare sector is pivotal to a functioning workforce and economic development nationwide.

Furthermore, we must address the challenges faced in supporting children with additional needs. While the access and inclusion model, AIM, has made strides in improving inclusivity, it falls short in terms of availability and access to professional supports. The AIM report has been completed but has not been published to date. Why has this not been published? Funding constraints, staffing issues, and long waiting times for assessments hinder our ability to provide inclusive and comprehensive care to all children. It is imperative that we allocate the necessary resources to ensure that every child, regardless of their needs, receives the support and care they deserve.

In light of these challenges, we call upon this committee to take decisive and immediate action. Moreover, we request a commitment to rectify the imbalances caused by the fee freeze, involving provider groups such as ourselves in evaluating costs and establishing a more efficient and inclusive discussion platform. This will allow for an open and transparent forum where solutions can be made to assist the struggling services that are stuck with fees dating from 2017 and back as far as 2010. This is severely hindering their ability to run a viable business with the current ever-increasing costs of running an early years service in Ireland. We believe that providers should have a more proactive voice in shaping the policies and decisions that directly affect their operations and the children they serve. By acknowledging their expertise in evaluating service operating costs and creating a platform for meaningful dialogue, we can foster an environment of transparency, fairness, and collaboration.

The future of the early years sector in Ireland depends on the sustainability of the sector and of school age childcare services also. Immediate action is required from the Government to address the financial, staffing, administrative, and mental health challenges faced by providers. Without such support, the consequence of service closures on families, communities, and the future of Ireland's children could be dire. By incorporating the voices of providers and addressing their concerns, the Government can take the necessary steps to create a more sustainable and supportive environment for the early years sector.

I thank the committee for its attention and I look forward to engaging in a fruitful discussion on these matters.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Dunne. We will now move to Early Childhood Ireland and I call Ms Heeney to speak now on its behalf, please.

Ms Teresa Heeney

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I wish committee members a good afternoon and I thank them all for inviting Early Childhood Ireland here today to discuss the issues facing the early childhood sector. I am the CEO of Early Childhood Ireland and with me is my colleague, Frances Byrne, our director of policy.

Early Childhood Ireland is the leading children’s advocacy and membership organisation, working in partnership with over 4,000 members nationwide to achieve quality experiences for every child in early years and school age care settings. We have a wide and diverse membership consisting of privately and publicly owned settings, educators, childminders, academics and students. All of our work is informed by what is best for children.

There is no doubt that the members of this committee are aware of the huge importance of early years and school age care for infants and young children. Early childhood lasts a lifetime and there is a large body of evidence to prove that quality early childhood education has a positive and long-lasting impact on children’s outcomes, particularly for those experiencing disadvantage. Today, we are asking policymakers to adequately respond to the issues facing our hugely significant sector.

I would like to begin by discussing the issue of staffing. The recruitment and retention of staff is the number one challenge facing early years and school age care settings at present. By law, settings must ensure that a specific number of competent, Garda-vetted and qualified adults are working directly with children at all times. If a setting cannot fulfil the adult to child ratios, it may be forced to close one or more rooms, and delay any capacity expansion plans. Staffing pressures are caused by factors such as pay and working conditions, which we have already heard about.

First, many early years and school age care educators feel that their pay does not reflect the value of their work or the level of training and education they have obtained. Second, while Government policy rightly strives for a graduate-led workforce with quality-assured continuous professional development, pay rates are not matching this important policy goal. The latest available data from the Pobal early years sector profile show that approximately 25% of staff working directly with children have a national framework of qualifications level 5 qualification, 40% have a level 6, while 33% have a level 7 qualification or higher. It is vital that core funding addresses the terms and conditions of staff and that the sector’s 30,000-strong workforce is not left at the mercy of an annual wage negotiation process which is moving at a frustratingly slow pace.

I will move on now to discuss investment and better data. While Early Childhood Ireland commends the Government on providing over €1 billion for the early years and school age care sector, this investment was coming from a very low base. To bring us in line with our EU counterparts, Early Childhood Ireland proposes that the Government publishes a five-year plan for implementing additional investment in our children’s early years and school age care to reach €4 billion, which is approximately 1% of GDP, by early 2029.

Good planning requires good data. We are also calling for the implementation of the Partnership for the Public Good report's better data recommendations and to initiate a system of national and local two-year and five-year planning cycles to ensure there are enough early years and school age care places in their own communities for children.

On the issue of the administrative burden, our members are concerned about the amount of time they spend on administering the various funding programmes as it is taking educators away from quality contact time with children. Many are particularly dismayed by the attendance requirements. These lead to a lack of flexibility for families and are not child-centred as they should be, and focused on the lives and needs of children. Early Childhood Ireland proposes a unification of the existing funding programmes: the national childcare scheme, the early childhood care and education scheme and the core funding, to allow settings to use capacity and not children’s attendance as a funding requirement, as is the case with one of the programmes now. This would offer improved flexibility with no financial consequences for providers or parents. We can say more about this if the committee would find that useful.

We would also like to discuss with the committee today the issue of setting closures. For various reasons, according to the reports to Tusla, early years or school age care settings must close. Early Childhood Ireland believes that not enough is being done by the relevant stakeholders at present to avoid or to manage these closures properly. We are proposing the establishment of a stakeholder response team whose purpose is to manage and respond to planned setting closures in a timely manner, and to examine a range of options focused on the best interests of children.

We have provided the committee with a more extensive policy proposal document that goes into greater detail. We will distribute that.

Significantly more investment is needed to provide an early years and school-age care sector that is of high quality, adequate capacity and inclusive of all children. It is vital for the interim sustainability and certainty that families, providers, educators and communities need that a new funding target and a coherent plan to achieve it is published. We have repeatedly called on the current Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and his Cabinet colleagues to do this. We hope that this committee will consider supporting us in this call. It will require more than one Government to agree and implement this plan, so political leadership from all sides is needed. All children and families deserve nothing less.

We thank the committee for inviting us here today and look forward to the discussion and questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Heeney. We will now move to the Children's Rights Alliance. Ms Ahern will give the presentation.

Ms Julie Ahern

We welcome the opportunity to address the committee on these important issues. For members who do not know us, the Children's Rights Alliance unites more than 150 membership organisations working together to make Ireland one of the best places in the world to be a child. Our members span all areas of children's lives across the life cycle.

This discussion has already touched on a broad range of issues that are facing different stakeholders in the sector. It is critical that today's deliberations are centred on children because they are the people who experience what is happening in early years settings. It needs to be informed by a child-centred approach to deal with the issues in the early years sector.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises parents and carers as the primary caregivers, but it also imposes a duty on the State to provide assistance to families, and this includes the provision of quality early years childcare services. Ireland was examined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child earlier this year, which had two key recommendations in the area of early years. These are the two issues that we will speak to today. The first is increased access to affordable childcare, especially for children who are living in poverty or disadvantage. The second is that the Government should increase the level of funding allocation to childcare and move towards a more publicly funded model of childcare.

Turning first to access to affordable childcare for children who are living in poverty and disadvantage, high-quality childcare is beneficial for all children, but it is particularly beneficial for those children who are living in poverty. This includes groups such as loan parents, Traveller and Roma children and other groups who we know experience significant disadvantages. The evidence shows that early years care is the single greatest leveller. If you invest money there, you will get the greatest return in terms of breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. It is common sense to start investing money there to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable will have access to high-quality childcare and wraparound services.

The First 5 strategy recognises this. Under it, there is a commitment to the establishment of a DEIS-type model for early years care. A report by the expert group on the funding model recommended the introduction of a new funding stream to tackle disadvantage. This year, the Department have put in significant work on the development of what they call an equal participation model to fulfil this goal and they have secured some money in budget 2024. However, what we really need is for this model to be fully developed and expanded upon. It is an opportunity to have wraparound services within early years settings, such as family support, food and other things that are needed by families. These could be different supports for families who are experiencing issues with drugs and alcohol. It is a way through which we can look to break that cycle of disadvantage. Best practice internationally suggests this is the way to tackle many of these issues. Over the next few years, it will be key to invest in this area and roll out this equal participation model that is centred on children and children's rights.

I will now turn to the second issue, which is a public model of childcare. The Government have done a lot of work. Many of our colleagues here today have mentioned the significant investment the Government have made in recent years. They have been looking to reform different areas. However, we have seen that there is clear support for moving towards a publicly funded model of childcare. We saw this in the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality, which recommended that this should happen over the next decade. Developing a public model of childcare from a children's rights perspective would ensure that children have access to high-quality services, that cost is not a barrier to accessing these services and that all children get the same quality of care. It is also a way of ensuring that staff receive proper pay and recognition, which is essential for realising a children's rights-based early years service. I am here with my colleague, Dr. Naomi Feely, and we are happy to take any questions on any of these issues or other issues.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Ahern. I will now open up questions from our members. I will run the order for members. Senator Clonan will be first. We will then hear from Deputy Murnane O'Connor, Senator McGreehan, Senator Ned O’Sullivan, Senator Seery Kearney and Deputy Sherlock.

Senator Tom Clonan

I am sorry I was delayed coming in, but I was watched the contributions from my office. As a parent of four children who are now adults and teenagers, I remember how in the early noughties we had four children in Dublin 4 who were under the age of six. Childcare cost €900 per month at that time. Like many of our contemporaries, we both had to work in order to pay the mortgage. That is the case because of the demographic and societal change. That was €3,600 euro per month for childcare and that early childhood experience. I remember at the time the discussion at Cabinet was almost exclusively about trying to provide subsidies for first-time buyers. It struck me, as a parent and as a citizen, that the whole issue of childcare was completely and utterly overlooked in Irish society. At that point - and I do not mean to be ageist - the average age of the members of the Cabinet was somewhere in the mid-60s. The membership of the Cabinet was almost exclusively male. I am wondering - and the witnesses might comment on this - whether we have a peculiar societal issue. The participation rate by women in our political system is very low. I do not think the people who make the decisions that the witnesses are looking for are necessarily representative of our society.

I also have to say that in a previous life I was a primary school teacher. I taught for two years. I remember having junior infants when I was on teaching practice. Teaching infants is not for the faint-hearted. I know from having been a primary school teacher about the developmental window for children and infants. People are pretty much formed by the time they are two or three years old. It is such an enormously important period of rapid development. There is an opportunity here for the State to invest in that through the representatives. I hear them loud and clear about the pressure they are under. It seems to me to be so anomalous that such a vital and important set of concerns are almost being overlooked. There is the potential to invest in people and our citizens. Not just vulnerable children but all children benefit from what we all share in common, namely, our aspirations.

I just have two questions, the first of which relates to why the representatives think we are outliers. I imagine we are outliers in terms of investment in the early years sector. Why is that the case? Is that a cultural and societal thing, because heretofore caring for children was seen as an exclusively feminine realm? In prior generations, an extended family was available to people, whereas now we live in a completely different set of circumstances. People are completely and utterly isolated and both parents are forced out to work. This is not through choice but through absolute necessity. I wonder why we are outliers. Is it something to do with the demographic makeup of our decision-makers?

The second question arises from my travels. I was always struck by the l’école maternelle system in France and similar systems throughout Europe where the state does properly fund and invest in early childhood years. Is that a model the representatives recommend for Ireland, or is there a model of best practice they have seen in another jurisdiction that they think would benefit Irish society?

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming before the committee. I have an idea from my previous employment experience of how hard they work. I often hear them being interviewed and trying to advocate for the sector. I wish them the very best in pursuing the agenda which will be of benefit to us all. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and for giving their evidence.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Senator. I might ask Early Childhood Ireland and Children’s Rights Alliance to come in on the outlier question. On the other question about the different models, I will ask SIPTU, the federation and the Association of Childhood Professionals to come in. It is okay if people want to jump in on the other questions, but I think the question about being an outlier is probably a bit more appropriate for Early Childhood Ireland and the Children's Rights Alliance.

I should say to all our witnesses that if there are things they want to say, they should just indicate and I will bring them in. I will start with Ms Byrne.

Ms Frances Byrne

We smiled at each other when Senator Clonan made the comment about the cultural context for this because we talk about it all the time. We have extensive international partnerships for carrying out research and so on. As you get to know people, they ask why. For the historical context, I was going to make a different analogy but there are two issues. One is the place of women historically. We are very aware, as everyone is, of the following. I am a bit of a nerd so I look online at night and see the committee members in here until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., which is nuts. If one is facing into that kind of political existence and career and is of the gender that is traditionally associated with care, what does one do? It is why we have seen few women in politics; we know all of that. The absence of women in politics has had an impact. There is a traditional view of women. I cannot say I am old enough to remember the marriage bar but I was alive and young at the time. I have relatives who were affected by it.

The second issue is that when we did move ahead in Ireland, we looked at the area from two perspectives. One can understand both perspectives and this is not a criticism of previous Governments. One was the perspective of disadvantaged children, quite rightly, and the other perspective was the labour market participation of women, also quite rightly. As the Senator knows well, Ireland was not good on the issue of children's rights. We need to start seeing this as a right in the same way that we would not countenance primary or secondary school education being taken away from children. If we were setting up early years care and education tomorrow, we would not end up with the system we have now. What is good and important for children must be at the forefront of our minds. Historically, we have not been good at considering those issues. It is a double whammy, if you like. I do not mean to be facetious when I say that.

Dr. Naomi Feely

I concur with many of the comments that Ms Byrne has made. I would reinforce the point around children's rights. The Government's commitment to invest more than €1 billion in early years care both this year and next year is significant and shows we are starting to prioritise this from a children's perspective. At a European level, we are conscious that there is a strong commitment to looking at investment in early childhood education and care as one of the key aspects of tackling child poverty. We can see that right across the EU. When we go to meetings at the EU - and the committee might be surprised to hear this - we are often held up as a good example of having a very good strategy for tackling children's issues. We have a lot of issues that need addressing but it is important to acknowledge that we have undertaken significant work in recent years to refocus the system. One of the key challenges is that we are coming from a base of a marketised mixed model approach to delivering childcare. We are starting to address that through the various initiatives under the First 5 strategy and the developments that are coming out of it. It is an important foundation that we work towards in terms of developing a public model of childcare that is available in some other European countries. We have a long way to go but we are starting to take significant steps in the right direction. Ms Ahern may wish to add something.

An Cathaoirleach

Do Ms Quinn or Ms Clarke want to address any of those points or some of Senator Clonan's questions on the different models and where there is better or increased State investment?

Ms Marian Quinn

I thank Senator Clonan for his observations. I can see his background of working with children in what he has asked. Very often, it takes working with children for people to realise why this is so hugely important. I agree with what both my colleagues have said. The significant work that is being done by the Department and the Government has possibly caused more problems than it has cured because the sequencing has not been correct. We might have a very strong building with the building blocks in place but the foundation on which it is built is so shaky that it is causing money to leak out. I do not think we have the most effective way of spending money. As Ms Heeney and Ms Byrne alluded to, there is a need for a concrete plan. I know we work from budget to budget and we are tied to the budgets. Working from budget to budget without a strong plan that allows people to see where we are going creates a lot of confusion, frustration, disappointment, disillusionment, etc. As I alluded to earlier, if we were to build a model whereby we will need more spaces because the national childcare scheme is being increased or because the access and inclusion model is being widened and more children are going to be able to access it, we need it to be built on the ability to staff the service. If we cannot staff it, there is a problem of sequencing. It is great to announce such a scheme but it is problematic if the scheme is not going to be actualised.

On model provision, we said for years that we need to consider what is happening in the other areas of education. If you want to have core staff, you need to be considering the possibility of the Government paying the staff, as is the case for primary schools. That would guarantee, tie in and ring-fence finance. We would be able to tie it in with a pay scale, maternity leave, sick pay and all of that sort of stuff. The staff, the educators, would then feel valued. They would recognise there is a plan and would understand that something might not happen today but a plan is in place for it to happen in three or four years. That is the opposite of working from budget to budget, where staff are wondering is something going to happen this year, is there going to be a little bit of an increase or any increase at all, or is the Government going to focus on a different area. That is something we need to look at. It ties in with the publicly funded model. Perhaps that needs to be considered.

Ms Elaine Dunne

I will make one comment. People are always saying the system is broken but it is not. The funding is broken. I have travelled around the whole country in recent months and gone into very high quality services. We have met staff and parents and it has been a rewarding journey. One of the things that has come up is that funding is our biggest issue and if that could be fixed, it would fundamentally resolve everything underneath.

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

In terms of the different models, Ireland has historically had a marketised system. The State would have put some money in but had no control over where that money went. The State has two key objectives. One is high quality, and we have heard how important that is. That usually means having good, professional staff who are properly and well trained, and remuneration is a part of that. The other objective is reducing fees for parents and allowing for labour market participation and all those good things. Historically, the State has put money in but has no control over that money once it is paid to the provider. That is to make no comment on the provider. The money could have been used to reduce fees or improve pay but the State has no control over that. Core funding is about giving the State some levers to be able to have confidence that if it puts money in, it will deliver on these policy objectives. Without those levers, there is an enormous obstacle to increasing funding. A state is not going to spend an extra €1 billion in early years care unless it knows it will get bang for its buck.

There has been so much change that the sector is a bit of a rollercoaster in general. Core funding has only been in for one year and one month. It still has to settle and we will see where it goes. That is effectively public management. There are levers here. There are pay talks and the fee freeze that enabled the subsidies to catch.

The French system is more of a public system, which is another step again. Ireland is an outlier in the European Union in having no public provision. It is strange and odd. The question is what is a public system in the Irish context. That is the question. You have all this infrastructure in the private and community operators. There are buildings and staff, and people have set up businesses and all the rest of it. What would a public system look like? SIPTU previously advocated for a situation similar to that for primary schools whereby the State would take over the payment of wages.

That would take away 70% of the costs of providers for delivery. It would be gone because it is the wage bill. It would also give us the opportunity to reduce fees significantly. That is one vision of a public system. It needs to be fleshed out and I am sure everyone around this table will have lots of opinions about it. There is a commitment in the core funding report to examine what a public system might look like in an Irish context. It has been signed off by the Government so it would certainly be an interesting debate to have.

Senator Tom Clonan

One of my children when in creche, was diagnosed with a neuro-muscular disease at 18 months and has additional needs. The wonderful people who are providing the childcare, Liz and Lena, innovated and wrapped everything around him so he was included in everything. It was a powerful endorsement of his rights as a child to participate fully in the cultural and educational life of the Republic. I saw that example. In response to the statement that it is not broken, I say to my colleagues, especially those who have access to people in the Cabinet who make decisions, there is significant human capital in the sector as regards people's qualifications and their demonstrated commitment, despite all the difficulties. The witnesses know better than I do, that these are the years when we can really intervene in the accelerated emotional, physical, psychological and intellectual development of our youngest citizens. The bang for buck is almost unquantifiable as regards the value to the State of intervening in that way. I ask my colleagues to listen to what is being said here today and to fix the core funding issue and commit to it.

I thank the witnesses and commend them on the hard work they do. I know it is not for the fainthearted.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I thank everyone for being here today. I am on the opposite end. I am a granny so I am the lady who can hand them back after a few hours. I love to have them but then I say "here are the mammies, thank God". I am a mother of four children so I have seen the role childcare providers - I always say educators - play. They kept the country running during the Covid-19 pandemic. They were a part of making the system work. We had huge challenges. I totally respect them and am mindful of childcare. Politics is a calling. Childcare and education is also a calling. The people who work in the sector love working with children. It is a lovely thing to give back to society.

SIPTU spoke about early years educators and I am concerned about what was said about the minimum wage being €13.65 per hour, which is now €1.15 less than the living wage. It is a huge issue because the biggest issue is recruitment and retention. All the witnesses spoke about it today. In Carlow, I have seen many childcare educators return to study to be primary teachers. Many of them are doing the courses in Hibernia College or other courses. We have to make sure we appreciate childcare workers and pay them proper wages. That can only be done with proper core funding. That is the biggest issue. We have to give more core funding. That is why we are losing staff. I firmly believe that.

Some of my questions have been answered. This matter was raised by the Association of Childcare Professionals. No one minds inspections, here is no problem with that, but the issue is the amount of paperwork. I have met Ms Dunne on several occasions and I am close to many of the childcare providers in my area of Carlow-Kilkenny, as is Deputy Funchion. When we meet them they tell us that they almost need one staff member just doing paperwork. That cannot be allowed to happen. It is not fair. It takes up a lot of time. We really need to look at that.

I took some good points from Early Childhood Ireland. We need a five-year plan. I agree with what it said about investment. I welcome that we have the €1 billion and one of the Government's priorities is to invest in childcare, but it now needs to be brought to another level. We need a five-year plan and look at how we can put extra funding into it because we have to keep childcare providers in operation. People and families have to go out to work. We have to ensure we have proper funding in place for them. One of the ways it can be done - this is big - relates to capacity as a measure. The measure should not be children's attendance. There should not be a funding requirement linked to a child's attendance. How is the provider to know that Billy or Mary will get up in the morning and not be able to go to school? They could be down one child today and another child tomorrow. I have said to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, that this needs to be addressed.

I will move on to some of Ms Dunne's points. We need to find out about the access and inclusion model, AIM, report that has not been published yet.

Ms Elaine Dunne

Yes, it was due to be published in March.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

Yes, in March. I will put a proposal to the committee that we request it today and ask why it was not published because we need it to be published.

I am not sure whether it was Ms Dunne who spoke about help with mental health or counselling. We also need to look at that. It really needs to be addressed. There are many issues in the childcare and education sector that we can address. We can support the providers and help them more. Sometimes it is the small things like the paperwork, which is huge to the providers because they have to have it in order to apply for all the grants. We need to make them easier to access. There are more "i"s to dot than anything and if they are wrong they are sent back. I remember one lady told me that she missed a deadline. She had to go back and fill in the whole thing which took her another few weeks. We have to look at the system, because the Government wants to help.

I am concerned about this. I said to the Minister that although we announced in budget 2024 that the national childcare scheme subsidy rate will increase from €1.40 to €2.14, but it will not happen until September 2024.

Ms Sonya Duggan

It is no good-----

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

It is good to have it, but when I saw it would not happen until September 2024, I was frustrated. I am passionate about these issues, like others here are.

On pay, I met with many childcare providers and their staff when I met Ms Dunne. Two women told me that they could not get a mortgage. We have educators in the system who are not able to qualify for a mortgage. This needs to be worked on. We are passionate about it. I am constantly speaking to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. I have written down all the issues raised today and I will go back to the Minister.

With the Minister, Deputy Foley, we spoke about delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS and disadvantaged areas. There have been gamechangers in primary schools, such as the hot meals programme for DEIS schools. The Government is looking at providing a hot meal in all schools, free book schemes in primary schools, now going up to junior certificate level. These are the things we need to start looking at for our early years childcare providers. We need to start looking at additional funding for and investment in childcare. There are changes, as all the witnesses said, but we need a lot more. This committee is passionate about doing what it can to promote childcare providers, work with them and help in any way we can.

Ms Teresa Heeney

I warmly welcome Deputy Murnane O'Connor's support of our recommendation of a five-year plan, especially her agreement with our recommendation that there be a shift towards capacity being the requirement, rather than attendance.

It is important to remember that we never have these kinds of discussions about children once they turn five and go to primary school. We only have them when children are under five and attending an early years setting. I echo what our colleagues in the Children's Rights Alliance said about how a rights-based approach to the enhancement of the early years system will allow us achieve a quality system. I also want to remind us why we need to retain staff. The central characteristic of good early years practice is the relationship between the educator and the children in a setting. A high turnover, as described by Mr. O'Connor, does not deliver good quality for children. A good model, such as the Nordic model spoken about by Senator Clonan, guarantees access, the quality is consistent and the staff's terms and conditions of employment are similar across the entire education spectrum. They are the characteristics of the system. We should advocate for public funding into our system, which builds on the existing system we have, to achieve those outcomes we are looking for.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I direct my next comment to Ms Dunne and the Federation of Early Childhood Providers. I have spoken to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, about what I think is the biggest issue. People who know the childcare profession, like childcare providers, should be part of negotiations and part of a scheme that has their input as well. I know from speaking to Ms Dunne that did not happen. I will be calling on the Minister and the Department for childcare providers from whichever sector to have someone there to have an input into policy making and decisions. It is like everything else. The people working on the ground know the system better than anyone else. I have learned that over the years, and it is something I will be working on for Ms Dunne and the others.

Ms Elaine Dunne

I have a comment on mental health. From travelling round the country and as was said at the meeting attended by the Deputy, the administrative and financial burden are the two biggest contributors to mental health for providers on the ground. They both need to be addressed urgently.

Ms Sonya Duggan

That is down to the stress of the over-burdensome administration we have.

We talk about the turnover of staff. That ultimately relates to the income we receive. All early childhood care and education scheme, ECCE, sessional services are already publicly funded. We are technically publicly owned. We are giving the best service we can. We have had one 7% increase in the past 13 years. Some services that did not sign up to core funding have lost the higher cap programme support payment. That means they have a reduction of €534 per child, as I do in one of my services. That is a lot of money. In one service that would have been €45,000 I would have got. The difference between what we received with higher cap and programme support payment versus core funding was a difference of approximately €3,000. Where was €3,000 extra going to pay the increased employment regulation order, ERO, levels last year? My staff would not have been on €15.50. Outside Dublin our rates are a lot lower. In rural Ireland our rates are much lower - by 40% in some cases. There is a different cost base. Every service model, no matter what way you want to put it, or what way the Department might like to say it wants one size fits all, you will not get a round peg into a square hole. Everybody has a different cost base. Capacity is obviously a massive issue across the sector. In the smaller services our core funding is lower. One childminder provider gets €6,000 in core funding. She is very worried, with the additional set of accounts we have been asked for, that will cost her another €1,500 minimum. How is she going to afford all of the increases?

For the rest of us, I did not sign up for core funding for one of my services. I increased my fees instead because I was very worried. I wanted to see where this was going. I did not want to lose autonomy over my business. I provide combined care, which includes sessional ECCE - which is free in the afternoons - full day care and part-time. We prioritise those places because I have full-time staff who want work 52 weeks of the year. My other service is full day care, but at least 85% are foreign, based on the logistics of where we are located and the cohort of children who attend our services. I have 19 children of different nationalities out of a class of 21. We have 16 children on the access and inclusion model, AIM. It is culturally diverse, but a lot of other issues come with that, which in reality the Department does not see. We spoke with Anne-Marie Brooks and were told that if we need additional staff to support our service in a room, because 90% of the children in the younger ECCE group are in nappies, that is our business decision to work from two to 22. If we want to employ more, they do not look at that. They just look at the regulations, rules, guidelines and costs. It is up to us to make that money work for us. With AIM, we have a child this morning who is pulling the inside of his nappy out and rubbing it in his face. The child needs support. The parents using our service need support. We are more than educators. We are social workers. We bridge the gap for every level of care those children need. In my service 25 years ago, we had a lot more interaction with our early intervention services. I could make a phone call and have support for that child in a matter of weeks. We now have no liaison at all with the early intervention teams. Our staff may be level 5, supporting our children on AIM, and some do not have the experience or expertise to support some of these children who are very high on the spectrum. We are doing the best we can.

We were receiving €16 per hour, which was thankfully increased through everybody lobbying for one due to the EROs coming in. We have to pay our costs and overheads - staff pay, sick pay and annual accrued leave, which is not paid for by the Department. We are paying our staff on ECCE models for a minimum 43 weeks in the year, and we are only being paid for 38. That is not significant. When you break down that €64.50 or €69, it was working out at €3.16 per hour, because all of our staff will get some sort of non-contact time, which we pay for. They are saying the core funding is the answer to our questions. The core funding is not the answer to our questions. The core funding delivers me €17.10 per child. They also say that from our 68 cent, 18 cent goes to administration. For me to pay even a €1 increase to my staff, I need 90 children at 18 cent for me to pay €16.20 per hour. That is to be inclusive of employer PRSI and everything else.

Let us be real here. My sessional services have 70 children between morning and afternoon. Our demographics in the area, and our birth rates are lower this year. I have been speaking to a lot of services that are facing the same. We are down income of 20 children. I still have 11 staff there. In my other service for full day care, we are down approximately 16 children from where we were last year. I have eight or nine staff employed there. Due to wages my ERO costs were up by €30,000. ERO was not going to cover that. They are talking about core funding as the magic number that is going to fix everything. It is not going to fix anything. You need to raise the capitation of ECCE, full stop. I am on €64.50 when 13 years ago I was on €90 per week. We are getting €69, but €64.50 is offset from the parents who are part-time and full day care. Where are we going? We have not moved with inflation. Nothing has been index linked. It is not acceptable. We are being made out to be the bad guys. The amount of paperwork has more than quadrupled in recent years, especially the past three or four years since Covid. We talk about our employees. We want everything for our employees. We want the best for our employees in every respect.

However, we cannot do that on core funding. We cannot do that on the ECCE. We were better off before. I have 90% graduate staff. We were getting our €80.25 per child. Now, with core funding, we have €79, so I am still on less, even with core funding.

An Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt, but a lot of others wish to contribute on this round and we also have other members who wish to contribute. In general, I do not like interrupting people but sometimes we have to move it on. Ms Quinn had indicated. She will be followed by Ms Ahern and then Ms Green.

Ms Marian Quinn

On educators not being able to get a mortgage, some are very far from a mortgage, as they are earning barely more than poverty wages. They cannot afford rent, not to mind a mortgage, and that is a significant issue for them. I work in Munster Technological University and teach on the degree for early years educators. We find people are going into the sector, maybe staying in it for a couple of years to get a bit of experience and then they are gone. It is brilliant for primary education because it benefits when they do go into that sector, but many of them are going abroad. It is great for them to gain travel experience but many are going because they definitely cannot afford to start a family. We hear about them going abroad so they can bring some money back and will maybe have an option of starting a family. It is very problematic when people need to make family decisions because they will not be able to afford to have children. That is the reality.

On providing food in primary schools, that scheme is brilliant. There was a pilot version of that in the early years sector but we do not know where it is going or when it will go anywhere. As part of that, there was targeted funding for services, especially those in areas of significant disadvantage and marginalisation. They were able to provide food for children but some of the targeted funding stopped. While we are waiting for the roll-out of the equal participation model, children who were getting food are no longer getting it because the services cannot afford to give them food. We have lost some stuff over the last few years on the journey towards something that is supposed to be better, but we do not know when it will be here. In the meantime, those children and the families are struggling.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I will look into that.

Ms Julie Ahern

On the point about DEIS and it being a game changer at primary level, the equal participation model has the potential to be that game changer. We have recently commissioned some research about what is going on across Europe and beyond on best practice examples. It is an opportunity to look at putting in place these wraparound services, such as food. One of our members, Ballyfermot STAR, provides food and supports families. These are children whose parents might be experiencing addiction and it is about the supports that can be brought in. There was mention of not being able to access services in the community, but we can bring in services. That is the sort of best-practice model we need to see developed. We have not yet seen the plan showing what this is going to look like. Having it rolled out properly over the next year or two will be very important.

We ran a consultation around this with parents, especially parents who were experiencing different types of disadvantage. I was very struck by what Traveller parents are experiencing. A lot of Travellers would come under this model. They are experiencing very basic issues like not being able to access the NCS forms because they are online. That is a big issue. We know from our members in Galway that there is one education support worker in the whole Galway region for Traveller families and that is for primary all the way up to tertiary education. They are going around to the different sites trying to help people fill in the forms. It would be very easy to put in place a Traveller education worker to support those families. That is just one group of people we spoke to. Looking at some of the bigger issues, like the DEIS model, there is huge opportunity here and any support the committee could give to ensure that plan addresses the issues families are facing will be important.

Ms Avril Green

I am a proud early years educator. I love my job and working on the ground every day with children, I see the difference we make. I chose to come into this profession. I upskilled specifically to work in early years and got my degree, but there are big problems. Many early years educators are living pay cheque to pay cheque and this is having a very negative impact on their lives and mental health, as was mentioned. Most cannot get a mortgage or car loan. They have difficultly paying bills, including the cost of childcare for their own children. I have four children. Any unexpected expense is a big issue. If your car breaks down or you need a new washing machine, there can be massive problems and you worry about where the money is going to come from. This is why educators are having to make very hard decisions about the future and whether they can afford to stay working in the sector. So many skilled and experienced educators are voting with their feet and leaving for better paid jobs. We love our work, but love does not pay the bills. Things need to change. We need recognition, respect and better pay.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

Very well said.

Ms Sonya Duggan

I add to that a request that educator status be returned to our titles. It has been watered down. We are more than caregivers; we are educators.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

They are educators. I agree 100%.

Ms Sonya Duggan

I believe that was done just to keep the bar low with regard to funding.

Ms Anne Clarke

On the paperwork and communicating directly with providers on the ground, there have been attempts to make communication. For instance, before the NCS was introduced, people across the board said the hourly rate was not going to work because it is not our system. We work and are regulated as professionals, working part time and full time, so why would an hourly rate suddenly be thrown into the equation? The hourly rate was proceeded with and it is not working.

Just recently, there were meetings around the country on the new charter of accounts. I attended a meeting in Navan and the message was "No, this ain't going to work and why can't it be done X or Y way?" The next thing we got a letter on 24 October saying it was going ahead. It is very hard when the Department is not listening. It may take on board what we are trying to say, but it is not listening and it is very frustrating to constantly feel we are battling every move it makes. I do not mean to focus on the accounts issue alone, but it means services that do not have this system must pay for a second set of accounts. The Department let us know on 24 October it wanted the validated accounts for 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2023. At this time of year, many people will be going through their accounts. Their financial year could be from January to December and all of a sudden the Department wants to use a different financial year. There was a circular sent out with it. The Department should have let us know. Instead, the whole sector is in a commotion at the minute because people are worrying about where the money is going to come out. The accountants are going to have to do this. The Department insists on the accountant signing off on it. Many people went to their accountants and were asked where they were going with it. They were told there was not a hope in hell, so we are stuck in the middle. Talking to providers on the ground - I can only speak about the people I work with in Cavan - is frustrating. I wonder where we are going. This is a top-heavy thing, as has been said around the table.

Senator Erin McGreehan

The witnesses are very welcome to our committee. It is great to have this topic discussed. It is one we regularly have conversations about, so it is great to have the witnesses before us. I congratulate everybody on the work they do. There have been changes within the sector and we are not where we want to be. It is all down to the advocacy and work of the organisations before us and the witnesses coming in here and relaying that. It is very important they are here again today as we will be able to take their message back to our parties and engage in cross-party work on this.

Core funding has its difficulties and problems, which are well recognised. It has been a game changer and had made a huge difference in the way early years education has been funded. We are trying to improve children's outcomes within services, especially in vulnerable and disadvantaged areas. I am interested in the witnesses' views on how a DEIS model could work within the system. Everyone is talking about the administrative burden. It seems like a big mountain, but also a man-made one, that needs to be traversed.

I am very interested in finding out whether there are ways in which we can reduce the burden. Early Childhood Ireland mentioned the amalgamation of funding programmes. Administration is really important for lots of reasons, including transparency and making sure that staff are paid properly. Many of my colleagues have given their children over to an early childcare provider and staff member, as have I. They hold our worlds with them every day. I have four young boys and it is a privilege to be able to hand my children over to someone they love. That is priceless so their work needs to be valued more. Along with all this administration, how do we give the staff who look after our most precious belongings in the world the value we personally put on them monetarily? How do we support providers to do that?

It may not be a matter for this debate but perhaps Ms Duggan could brief us on something in a side note. I refer to the €17 per child. What is needed per child?

Ms Sonya Duggan

Realistically, we need-----

Senator Erin McGreehan

No, as I was-----

Ms Sonya Duggan

I am sorry. I will wait until the Senator has finished.

Senator Erin McGreehan

What is needed per child? What does the State need to do? I favour a public childcare system and that is what I am pushing for. As Ms Duggan said, staff are educators providing an education rather than childminders. My children were the better of it after they left the ECCE years. I have a question on the better data. What does that look like? On the five-year plan, we have the census and know how many children are being born. We can do analysis and make estimates of what is to come but what do the data needed to properly plan look like?

We do not get fees. It is free. We are fully funded by the Department. From our parents whose children are full day or part time, we take away the reduction of the ECCE scheme and the national childcare scheme. It makes it a lot more affordable. One of our services is €185 a week. Next years, the parents will only have to pay €13.70 a day for full-day care. That is €73 a week after the NCS contribution. That is based on the universal scheme, which is increasing from €1.40 to €2.14 an hour. Obviously, many of our parents are means-tested. Last year, the parents of one child only had to pay €5.95 a week for 45 hours of care. The NCS is absolutely working. It is 100% brilliant. Parents are being looked after and our staff are on the road to being looked after but, with the higher cap we had before, we were not singling out one staff member as a group leader. The higher cap only acknowledges one level 7 or level 8 person per room. We would often have three degree graduates in a room of 22. Who do we decide who will be the group leader? We were fair and equal to everyone. This is the issue. We are pitting staff against staff, staff against employers and parents against providers and it is making the whole situation quite intolerable at times.

There is also the fact that, like many others, my staff cannot get mortgages. I had a staff member who was homeless. I am thankful that our Laois Deputies were superb in helping to secure accommodation for that staff member, who has two children with additional needs. I heard from a staff member this morning who is in the same position. A parent came to us crying this morning. She was kicked out of her house on 27 October and is now in a hotel in Mountrath. She is like a refugee and has two children with additional needs. She is not a refugee; she just has nowhere to live. It is terrible. We are facing the reality of those situations and hearing those stories every day while also doing our jobs and being educators in the room.

Ms Frances Byrne

I thank the Senator for her questions. I hope I remember and address them all. Ms Heeney and I will cover them between us. On the DEIS model and equal participation, we keep asking people to say "DEIS-like" or "DEIS type" because we are very conscious that, given the way our sector is set up and the various different service models within it, there are disadvantaged children in settings in areas that may well look affluent on the face of it or that may well be affluent. One of the positive things to say about the sector is that it is one of the places where children mix very well regardless of their family's income. We absolutely and completely support the equal participation model. There was an important event last week where Pobal launched its brilliant new data. It was really heartening to hear the assistant secretary in the Department say that these ground level data will absolutely help but that the universality of subsidies, the system and supports will remain. That is the only word of warning. We will watch it very carefully but entirely support it. A teacher or principal in a DEIS school or one who is interested in and alert to disadvantaged children will say that DEIS is not always perfect. The other thing we are very conscious of is that children have no agency over their lives. Parents may lose their jobs or acquire a disability. Circumstances can change. We completely and warmly welcome it.

I will address something that moves me. It was not the subject of the Senator's next question but it was built into her questions. We have lifted the better data language from Partnership for the Public Good and make no apologies for doing so. We agree with that report. If it did not before, the Department now knows more about every setting that has signed up for core funding because of the volume of data required for the applications and so on. We believe there are better ways of organising and responding to need. We have thought this for a long time, as the Senator will know, and we lobbied hard to get a single agency into the programme for Government.

We were delighted to see it and to see other parties that did not end up in government supporting it before the most recent general election. That would certainly help to gather and understand data better. It is about the gathering and using of the data. The Senator mentioned the census. I may get clobbered publicly for saying this, and I live in an area where this did not happen so I hope no one will give out to me, but if a five-year-old needs a place in school, by and large, he or she will get it, because somebody in the Department of Education is looking at that census. There is no similar system at the moment for early years and that is why we looked for the single agency.

The other reason Early Childhood Ireland looked for it, which was the main reason at the time, was that we believe bringing everything under one roof would absolutely help for better planning and better organisation of finances but also unify reporting, apart from on the inspection side, and bring the reporting for the programmes and for financial audits under one roof. At the moment, and this is why we were able to make the argument, settings can report up to seven State agencies and Departments, particularly if they also make food. It can be different information but sometimes it is duplicated. We have suggested technological solutions and there are issues about that, but there has to be a better way to do this. To be fair, the Department has tried and talked about it. The problem is that people have their own ways of doing things, going back years, and if a new system is introduced, that can be difficult.

On a related issue, the Department has signalled clearly that the long-term goal is an amalgamation of the funding programmes, but what Early Childhood Ireland is looking for, long before we get there, is that in respect of the capacity aspect relating to core funding, with which everyone, even those who complain about core funding, agrees, we have to get away from a system where both parents and providers are impacted financially if, for example, a granny or grandad who has not seen their grandchild since Covid is up from Cork and in Louth every Wednesday, or whatever might suit the family, and after a number of weeks, there is a text message about this not being the deal that was signed up for under the national childcare scheme. When we describe that to our international colleagues, they look at us in disbelief.

We need to move away from that. We have to go back to capacity. It has an impact, in particular, on services that have very low numbers of children because they are rural, for example, or perhaps they live on a tiny estate and children go only from that estate. We need to get away from this attendance rules nonsense. There has to be a better way. There has to be financial accountability, to which we have no objection, but we have to be much more child centred in our overall approach. That is what we mean by the capacity issue, easing the burden and amalgamating the rules, which would help tick a number of boxes.

Ms Teresa Heeney

To conclude the point Ms Byrne made very well, planning systems are available to the Government. The Department of Education has a forecasting system and knows where children are living. It would seem to make sense that the Department would be able to access that system. Ms Duggan spoke earlier about the demographic change in her local area. That is very worrying for an operator that might have 40 children this year, 35 next year and 30 the following year. That is not sustainable for a well-planned system and it should not have to be like that, if data are being used and forecasting is being conducted. I referred to our closures policy, which we introduced today. Equally, if we were forecasting properly, perhaps with a role for local government, we should be able to avoid at least some of the closures that have the potential to happen in an area where the children are ageing out of the early years system.

Dr. Naomi Feely

I wanted to come in on the issue of the DEIS-type model for early years. I think we are all in agreement that we can break the cycle of child poverty if we invest in early years but the fact is that for some children, early childhood is very challenging for their families and there is a specific need to target resources towards supporting those children and their families to have access to early childhood services. We see a number of issues. When the Department was developing the equal-participation model, it focused on issues of access and participation. We certainly know from our members, as Ms Ahern spoke about, that for some Traveller families, it is really difficult to access that service because there are barriers around IT literacy and getting online to access information about where a childcare place is.

Taking another look at that, there is also the issue of participation. When a Traveller child does get into a service, there is the question as to what it looks like for them and what their sense of belonging is. What we would like to see in the new equal-participation model is consideration of the needs of certain groups, such as Traveller and Roma families, and I know the Department intends to focus on that group as a target group. If we go back to the data and look at the CSO figures, we know that children living in one-parent families, in particular, have specific challenges relating to poverty, whereby there are higher rates of poverty for those children. At the EU level, therefore, we see not only a close weighting of access to early childhood education and care but also a consideration of how that can unlock parental employment or engagement in education and training. That is a key issue.

We would like the model to look at those wraparound services. Ms Ahern spoke about the work undertaken in some of our members' organisations, where they provide not only a childcare service but also additional supports to parents, which other witnesses before the committee spoke about earlier. It is about supporting those parents through challenging circumstances, such as poor parental mental health, addiction issues and so on, and recognising not just this support for the individual child participating in the service but also what the family needs. I was struck by something one of the participants at our End Child Poverty week, which is one our events, said. You do not age out of poverty but the early years are the time to start trying to break that cycle.

I attended the same conference as Ms Byrne a few weeks ago, when we looked at the Pobal deprivation maps. There are a lot of data there that can really help us understand where the pockets of disadvantage are. I agree we do not see poverty just in those areas, and we know from the DEIS programme at primary and secondary school level that not all experiences of disadvantage are focused in those DEIS schools. There is considerable disadvantage in non-DEIS schools as well, and it is about how we tackle that issue. It is critical, as the Government commits to investing in the equal participation model, that we do not look at it just from a spatial or geographical level but also in regard to what the gaps are or what aspects we have not considered.

As a starting point, it is critical we come back to that children’s rights approach and look at what is needed for children. We will see it is about high-quality services and investing in workers who have a strong relationship with those children. Especially for children experiencing poverty and disadvantage, that will be critical.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I confirm I am on the grounds of Leinster House. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

I completely support the idea of a five-year plan. Early years providers need to know what is coming. They need a roadmap for how funding is going to be increased and how their services are going to be supported. They need to be able to predict what is able to happen, in the same way any organisation would make a business plan, and we should have clear visibility of that. The programme for Government contains a commitment to create a childcare agency, which was supposed to centralise all these issues and stop the multiple reporting to various entities. I understand a little work was done on it but I would welcome any feedback from the witnesses if they have heard anything further.

I know that I have not, but I would welcome hearing their feedback on that.

On the things that I really wanted to talk about, when core funding came out last year and the budget was announced in 2022 for 2023, Ms Dunne and I found ourselves in a couple of different interviews together. In that, at all times, I was reassured by the Department and the Minister that a sustainability fund would come into place to support services where the core funding came up short. A recent inquiry that was made into the Department showed that only three services have availed of that. It went on to give a rather convoluted explanation which was quite a departure from the original vision for what the sustainability fund was going to do. It said that applicants have to be in a case management process with Pobal, so it does not surprise me that only three services would avail of it. I would appreciate the witnesses' comments on that. It is something we were led to believe was going to be put in place - I fervently believed it would be of support to services - but it is not there or it is not functioning in the way that was envisioned.

I am disappointed that the budget did not put in place a specific red-circled increase for rates of pay. Otherwise, it will make any further negotiations even more contentious than they need to be, instead of reflecting the reality of what educators in early years need to be paid because of their services and the sheer investment for our children.

My second heading is capacity and I have two points to raise on it. The feedback I am receiving is that when it comes to the capital grants, the administrative system is overly burdensome. As a consequence, only a very small number of providers in the sector have availed of it. According to the figure I have, something like 2.5% of them are receiving funding under building blocks 1. I would appreciate feedback and information on that.

One of my own pet annoyances relates to the provision that developers must provide crèche facilities when the development is a large-scale development. It is intended that for every 75 units of housing, there must be at least 20 places for children. In big large-scale developments in Dublin, that should show an increase in capacity that is funded by developers. However, the opportunity to exclude one- and two-bedroom apartments from that is frustrating. In a lot of cases, that provision is never made. Where it is made, it is my understanding that even where services compete for it or tender for the work, it is not necessarily working the way it was envisaged either.

Third, and one thing that we have not really focused on, is that there was supposed to be an overhaul of the inspectorate. One of my frustrations, having worked in the childcare sector, is that on different days, different inspectors would interpret the regulations in different ways. They could walk past a door for ten years in a service, and then suddenly find a problem with it. It was unpredictable what the outcome of an inspection might be. There was also this terribly unfair thing whereby very minor issues were non-compliances that were published. That was very unfair to good services who maybe on the day rectified an observation that was made. I would appreciate the witnesses' views on that as well.

I could go on for hours, but my last point concerns the access and inclusion model, AIM. The feedback I am getting on the AIM is that the funding does not cover the cost of provision. In the context of the increased provision of SNAs in schools, with further funding for 1,200 SNAs, there is a fear now that AIM professionals are going to be more attracted to going into schools because there are better rates of pay and better opportunities for them there. I want to verify or test that feedback with the witnesses to see if that is their experience and get their views on it.

Lastly, I have always had a problem with the idea of funding staff for only 38 weeks of the year. What a nonsense. People have to pay their bills 52 weeks of the year and they are entitled to contracts of indefinite duration after four years. Providers and employers are then legally liable for people, despite the fact that Pobal and the State are not providing the funding for the entirety of the time. I find that annoying. That is my rant over.

Ms Anne Clarke

I will be brief because everyone else will probably speak to the same things. On the question of the childcare agency, it is still in motion as far as I know. Perhaps Ms Heeney knows more about it. The county childcare committees, CCCs, and all that are coming in together. I have heard nothing further on it.

The sustainability fund was there and people applied to it. The reason people are not applying is that if you are running a business - and childcare is a business - and you have to look for a loan in a year's time or two years' time and suddenly they ask if two years ago you got sustainability funding, you are not going to do it because you are not going to gain from it.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

There is a reputational implication.

Ms Anne Clarke

Exactly, and a bank would not look at you.

On capacity and the capital grants, a few people got them. Again, we are going back to the same point that a capital grant is great and all the rest of it for the interim, but you put the building up, you spend the money and there are no staff to go into it. You are creating another problem. You are taking staff maybe from an existing service and you are trying to split staff between the two. Our main crisis at the minute is staffing. Putting up new buildings and all the rest is not going to help with staffing.

On the development of crèches, I am not sure about Dublin. Perhaps someone else can answer that. I know that in Cavan there is still a requirement to provide a crèche in estates of over 75 houses.

I thank Ms Clarke. Ms Heeney will be followed by Ms Byrne and then Mr. O'Connor or Ms Green.

Ms Teresa Heeney

I will answer a couple and Ms Byrne might pick up a couple of them as well. Senator Seery Kearney's welcoming of the five-year plan and the development of a roadmap is great to hear. I will not go over what Ms Clarke already said but as we understand, the programme board for the single agency has been appointed and continues to meet. Planning is certainly under way. There is an event shortly bringing together people involved in early childhood care and education, ECCE. As to where it is at in terms of a plan, we would not have the answer to that.

I would like to come in on the issue of developers. Ms Clarke is absolutely right. We can develop all kinds of buildings in all kinds of places but if we cannot find the staff, they are literally white elephants. With regard to the current arrangements, however, it may be useful for the committee to know that developers still do have to build. Where there are 75 houses, they still have to build a crèche. However, on the face of it, that might seem clear and transparent, but what we hear from members of Early Childhood Ireland is that they are often not built on time. They are often left to the very end of the development of an estate. Parents are already in the house and they are not able to find a place. They can quite often be in a poor location within an estate, which adds considerable time to the start and end of a day for families. In addition, we hear that the cost of the purchase or lease of those buildings is very often very prohibitive. It could be upwards of €1 million for just a shell. Small, independent providers simply are not going to find a bank that will give them €1 million to access that. That really impacts on the offer.

We certainly have discussed with Government whether the local authority should have a role in acquiring those premises and then engaging with stakeholders and the existing community and private providers locally who may be able to extend their existing offering to roll out those services. In addition to this, locally, and this is the irony, in areas where builders are building new developments, access to schools then becomes a premium. We would hear quite regularly from members of Early Childhood Ireland who may have run a preschool service in a room of a school, but because the school now needs to take that room for educational purposes and because early years is not considered educational purposes within the Act, they are being asked to leave the school. The school loses the early years setting and the early years setting certainly cannot afford to go to this other place, so it causes a real problem in areas of high demographic growth. There is definitely a role for the State in that challenging situation.

Ms Clarke's point is well made with regard to the Senator's question about the access and inclusion model, AIM. In early years, we have a qualified workforce and very many of them have participated in inclusion training offered by the Leadership for Inclusion, LINC, programme. That workforce is very attractive to schools as special needs assistants, so we lose our workforce to the primary school system on an ongoing basis in these other support roles.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I thank Ms Heeney very much.

Ms Frances Byrne

I do not have much to add except to respond to Senator Seery Kearney's question about capacity and the capital grants. Things have improved a little bit in that the Department used to literally go from year to year. Therefore, 2016 might have had a focus on outdoors, for example. It did not; I just cannot remember what it was. Then, in 2017, it would be something else and, in 2018, it would be something else. We worked hard to tell the Department that is not helping and it does not help anyone with planning.

To be fair, during Covid and since, we have been heard, so now everybody knows what is coming next in terms of the next couple of years and how much money there will be. In the absence of effective planning and all the other things the Senator talked about, however, it is important now because the development piece has been introduced. I am talking about planning in that sense, but also the planning we spoke about earlier. In the absence of that good, effective planning, the capital funding is affected.

To be very honest, we were really taken aback when we saw the figures. I do not remember who flushed them out through a parliamentary question - it could have been the Senator herself - but I genuinely do not remember so I apologise. We fact-checked and double-checked because we were so taken aback by the low number. We did talk to some members. We have some active member reference groups. Some of it was timing and some of it was just capacity. Therefore, it is very hard to know from one capital funding application to the next one what exactly is getting in the way. Certainly, however, the foresight we have seen, that is, announcing in three-year cycles, is really welcome because at least people can be ready and plan. However, if we were doing better planning on both sides, we would probably get more applications. There would be a much higher demand if people knew what they were facing into and, again, it goes back to our five-year plan idea. Therefore, if people knew what the core funding, the national childcare scheme, NCS, or the demographics were going to look like, they could then take that chance and speak to that local developer or apply for the capital funding because they would be able to attract the staff or be able to offer a pay scale. It is all those issues other colleagues have spoken to. The need for all of that is very interlinked in the sector.

Like the Senator, I have to say, I have been appalled. She is not the first Member of the Oireachtas to raise this issue. The ability to get out of, if I could put it that way, not providing an essential public good and service has been raised with us privately by Members of the Oireachtas. The presence of one-and two-bedroom apartments is very divorced from the reality of the way people live their lives and it is very divorced from the reality of our housing issue. I absolutely and completely support the Senator in that. It is really not good enough that that has been allowed to happen. I thank the Senator.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I thank Ms Byrne. I was very taken aback by the low figure for the capital grant and thought it was woefully inadequate. My colleague and I here in the office built a crèche together back in 1999. A person could put in his or her application and establish and build a service and make forward plans. We seem to have stepped backwards, or there is a presumption of asking who will do it but it will not be us. For what it is worth, I am busy behind the scenes saying that it is not enough. We need substantially more funds than that.

Ms Elaine Dunne

We have been working with a service that has applied for the sustainability fund and it is not very easy to access. There is a lot of paperwork involved in it and the business is completely scrutinised.

It is something that providers do not like having to go through. One cannot get a loan or mortage and cannot do anything for five years if one accepts this sustainability fund, so it is really difficult for a provider to put their hand up and say that they have become totally unviable. Why is that? They have been chronically underfunded by Government and one is putting one's hand up to look for a handout from it that is going to damage one's capability as a business person even more.

We have spoken with the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. We had a meeting with him three weeks ago where we asked him to rebrand the sustainability fund and to change the name, and then it may make it a lot easier for providers to access it and draw it down. They are looking at that but we are waiting to hear back from them. It would be great if that could be raised through the Oireachtas committee.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

Yes, we will certainly do that.

Ms Elaine Dunne

On the buildings, we have been working with a lot of providers in Dublin in particular, who have been trying to buy over these new buildings that the builders have put into the estates. They do not do any fitouts on them, so one is buying the building as a blank canvas, and then one has to go in and spend. I had a quote from a guy last week that was €250,000 or more to go in and fit out this service, after over €1 million is paid for it, and then one has to do that. It is just totally unworkable for small or medium services. We would not be able to afford it. I actually went for one myself and there was just no way, with the amount of money that was going to be lost on it. Then we found that there were a couple of buildings over in north Dublin that have been sitting there for five years. They were there to open up as crèches and providers have gone for them. Two providers locally have gone for it, two different services, and they kept telling us they had no gardens. We literally had to sneak into the grounds to find where the gardens were. There are gardens. The five years have expired, so they can now change those buildings into either apartments, shops or whatever they want, and that seems to be what is going on a lot on the ground.

These buildings have to be made viable for us to afford to take them on or buy them. Maybe it would be that the Government buys the buildings and leases them out to us. I do not know but somehow, something needs to happen. Four new services are going in beside me. For every 75 houses that are built, a crèche is going in but 75 houses will not keep a crèche going for the next ten years. That is the reality. We are not going to be able to do that. It is unworkable. If those crèches open up beside me, I am gone. I am completely gone, and I have been in business for over 30 years. One cannot compete. They can go in and charge whatever fee they want, and they can then sign up to core funding, so they are on a much better footing than me, as somebody who is tied into fee freezes for any services going back either to 2010, 2013, 2014 or 2017. One is stuck but that new service can go in next door, charge astronomical fees and sign up to core funding.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

And get core funding. That is unsustainable.

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Duggan wants to come in on the AIM, if that is okay.

An Cathaoirleach

Could I ask Ms Duggan to be really brief because another person has to come in?

Ms Sonya Duggan

With regard to AIM, I know there is extra funding coming in next year for it, which would be very welcome. We do not know the terms yet but we hope it would be extended for children to attend who are part-time and full day care, or who are within that ECCE age cohort. We would really love to see it extended for all ages and all hours of care, and not just 38 weeks of the year. We would welcome any advancement on that.

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

On the building and capacity, it is utterly bizarre that one of the State's key policy interventions on this is handing over the building of crèches to developers who may or may not do that. That is insane. From the points that Ms Heeney and Ms Byrne were also making, it is just like the primary schools. We know how many children are born every year. We know when they are going to be three years old and five years old. One can plan out what capacity is needed and how to be able to do that. It should not be left opened up to the market because we see that there is market failure for lots of different reasons, including million euro plus crèches for a few rooms.

There is a huge amount of merit in Ms Dunne's point as well in that the State has an involvement in building or buying premises that can be leased out to providers. That is certainly something that could be done. It is either that the State pays for it through grants, or parents pay for it through increased fees. If the State has a role, why not retain the asset and let providers get out and provide those early years services?

With regard to pay, I know that Senator Seery Kearney talked about a lot of people moving to SNAs because they have the qualifications. That is absolutely happening, or they are doing a year-long course to become a primary school teacher, or they are emigrating, or they are moving into retail. They are scattered all over the place. The key driver is pay, though it is not the only driver. At the moment, a graduate early years room leader or lead educator earns €15.50 per hour as a minimum. In no way does that recognise their work or value at all. That needs to keep on increasing year in, year out. We have only done one pay deal. We have just over a year done on it, so there is a way to go. Senator Clonan was there. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation, INTO has been around for 100 years, so one would expect it to get its work done by that stage.

We have to recognise the low base the sector was starting from. In 2021, a graduate room leader was earning €11.48 per hour. When we conclude this pay deal, which we hope is on the verge of being concluded, that will bring them up to €16.28. That is a 42% increase. I hate to say that it is not enough but we have to recognise that the tide that is rising is catching all the lowest paid people first. It is bringing them up to the rates we are agreeing, and we have to keep on pushing that until we get to a place where everybody is recognised with appropriate pay and conditions. That takes funding. It is either parents pay for that or the State pays for it. That is why we have to keep on working towards it.

When we see the headline figures and we say that pay is not enough and is not moving fast enough, I think we miss just how transformative those current rates of pay and the ones coming in have been for the lowest paid workers in the sector.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I am delighted to be here today because this has been really informative. It is really educational for us because while we all have an understanding of the sector and the challenges that it faces, what we have been allowed to do today through this hearing is to delve a little bit deeper and further our understanding.

I came into this place in 2007 and I am kind of on my way out. I would suggest, respectfully, that up until the point where I had a family of my own, my understanding of the sector, politically, was zero. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the sector to engage with Deputies at the individual or local level to deepen their understanding. We are all very helpful from a constituency of office point of view in engaging with individual providers. There is not doubt about that. However, until such time that every Deputy and Senator has an understanding of the sector, there is potentially a job of work to be done to deepen the understanding, or to help Deputies understand the sector more. It is from that, then, that the idea of multiannual funding, proper planning and understanding the issues that all of the witnesses face on a daily basis, gets more leverage. They will get more leverage in the political landscape and start getting into the ears of Ministers, and backbenchers start getting into the ears of Ministers. It raises its profile as an issue within the political firmament. Very often, what the witnesses are doing here is competing for space and the ears of Ministers. Where there is one line Minister in a tripartite Government, that is a challenge in and of itself.

There is a job of work to do there. We have three kids at home, and I do not think one can talk about this without personalising it to one's own experience. Our eldest is six and my youngest is 15 months. Our eldest has been through sessional and ECCE services, and I make no bones about saying that it has just been transformative for our child. There is the parental role but there is also the educator role. His experience has been phenomenal.

I cannot say enough about how good the service has been. Our middle child is availing of our local naíonra and the people who work there are absolutely phenomenal people. I want to acknowledge that because I have seen how happy my children are when they come out in the evening. It is incredible the experience and dedication displayed by the people who work in these services. I know one hears platitudes from politicians but I want to express my gratitude for the services that the organisations present provide because they have had a tremendously positive effect on our little family. We are very grateful for those services.

I wish to mention a couple of things that have arisen. My party and I are in favour of a publicly funded model. In addition, my party leader, Deputy Ivana Bacik, has spoken about that Donagh O'Malley moment. I do not understand why, if there is a publicly funded model of tertiary education, primary education and secondary education, the same does not follow for early years education. I will outline the takeaways for me today and I will take these back. I hope that we, as a committee, will conduct a post mortem or analysis of all that we have heard here today and co-ordinate a position to bring to the Minister.

As mentioned earlier, Article 2 of the UNCRC clearly requires that no child should experience discrimination in early childhood and that all children should be able to access the vital services that contribute to their survival and development, in line with Article 6.5. For me, that is the starting point. Perhaps, as a public representative, I should have had that language and been equipped with it. We should equip more people like me with that language and if we start with that fundamental premise we can move on from there.

Earlier Mr. O'Connor, from SIPTU, in his statement said: "An OECD comparison of early childhood education expenditure per child shows that Ireland spent $4,790 per child in 2022, compared with an average of $11,827 for our EU peer group." I presume that is US dollars. The comparative expenditure shows how much of a laggard we are. I take the point that has been made that we are still building capacity within the system. We are very lucky to have stakeholders like yourselves who are absolutely in tune and very much driven by developing a system that we can all stand over, is fit for purpose, subject to rigour, etc. It is a case of how do we politically move beyond the anachronistic annual pageantry that takes place between line Ministers and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. For example, the Deputy O'Gorman goes to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and says he wants "X", outline his budget line, there is a scrap, the officials of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform push back and there is toing and froing. Such a system is absolutely outdated, anachronistic and does not serve the children well at all whom the stakeholders present serve well.

My biggest takeaway from today's meeting is that if we can put in place national development plans on a multi-annual basis, and if there are so many precedents here for multi-annual funding programmes, then if there is secure funding on a multi-annual basis, various issues can be tackled such as staff turnover and overheads. There are so many issues that can be tackled and if that list needs to be amended as progress is made, that can be done. That is the starting point.

I wanted to let the stakeholders that I am listening to what their representatives are saying today and that I am internalising it as one member of this committee. I will certainly take up the cudgel as one member of this committee and I hope that we, as a committee, will adopt a unified view on pushing back on the need for multi-annual planning and that is key.

I worry about the rate of attrition. When I talk to educators there are two emotions. On the one hand, there is the sense of pride that educators have in the fact that they are continuing to push themselves by availing of continuing professional development, CPD, but, on the other, they are demoralised. I know that we are only at the starting point of the ERO process. The train has literally left the station and we are not going back. We will continue to progress, hopefully, as a country, on that score.

On the retention of staff, as mentioned by Mr. O'Connor, I hope that we will get to where we need to go on that one because we do need to retain staff and that is a key challenge. If we are not retaining staff then children like my children, and the children whom I represent, are not going to benefit. We must concentrate on multi-annual programming and looking at the core rates of pay.

I take the points that have been made about core funding. Let us talk about a publicly funded model and using the other educational areas as a benchmark, which are private and public schools, and fee-paying schools and non fee-paying schools. Is it now the case that if one wants to be a fully private model, and if one has people who will pay the fees, then survive on one's own terms and if one wants to be part of the public model then one can do so? Is that where we need to go? I ask because I do not think one can be half in and half out. I mean if one subscribes to a publicly funded model or a core funding model then one has to accept the associated terms and conditions. If there is a critique of that, so be it. That is understandable but let us work through the critique. I do not have the wisdom of Solomon on this. Again, I will bow to the superior wisdom that the stakeholders present have on these matters. However, I find it frustrating, as one member of this committee, to hear different messages from different groups. I do not understand why there are so many groups. There are so many different stakeholders. Every sector has the right to organise itself according to its interests and that is perfectly laudable. Sometimes we hear different messages from different groups which I find confusing. If the sector spoke with one voice it might help with gaining greater political traction. I reiterate that I do not have the wisdom of Solomon on these matters and I am open to being corrected.

The accounting piece is a very current item that is putting a lot of pressure on providers. Earlier, Ms Dunne from the Federation of Early Childhood Providers state:

That is something for which we, as a committee, should take up the cudgel and combat immediately. Is there something that we need to do on that?

Ms Anne Clarke

No. It is the fact that we went to the regional consultations where people expressed a total no and how this is not going to work. Every company must produce financial statements which are audited through Revenue or whatever. The information one has is there, so what is this new element? We received a letter on 24 October of this year, which states what we have to do this. It is all in our agreement. Nobody denies the fact that we need validated financial reports because it is Exchequer funding so it has to be reported on but that must be done that in line with the financial year.

On 24 October 2023, Revenue sought validated financial returns for the year 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2023. That means a report on something that happened two years ago.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

That is true, yes.

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Julie Ahern

I will be brief. I also want to acknowledge what Deputy Sherlock said, starting with the point about children, which is key, and his reading out of those articles in the convention. Once we start there, we cannot go far wrong. Mr. O'Connor already covered the question of a public model so I will not labour the point, but now is the time for us to start teasing out what that means. If the committee asked all of us that question, we would all say something a little bit different. There would be similarities and differences but we should tease it out and start planning towards it. We are at a point where the State is putting a lot of investment into early years education and care, and hopefully that will continue to grow, but we should make sure we are getting exactly what we want for children at the end of the day.

Ms Marian Quinn

I thank Deputy Sherlock for his comments. Since 2003 we have been consistent in our message that we want the State to pay the wages and salaries. We want that funding ring-fenced. That would take a lot of issues out of the equation. It is difficult because we are looking for multi-annual funding but the Department continuously talks about budgets being every year and therefore it cannot do multi-annual funding. Part of the challenge is that our parent Department is responsible for children, equality, disability, integration and youth. One cannot argue with the Minister if he says that this year he needs to focus on disability or equality but this is a problem that is decades in the making and it is getting worse. We have been before this committee a few times and the Deputy has been consistent in urging us to get the message straight. A consistent message was demonstrated on the streets in 2020 just before Covid, when 30,000 people turned out to call for improvements in the conditions for educators. If we can sort that out, then there is a smaller piece that needs to be sorted out.

In terms of case management, the reality is that we want to improve the quality of service but case management is about a business model of provision for early years. It is about reducing down to the lowest number of staff required by ratio. The minimum ratio does not work because one cannot take care of three babies at once, one cannot change a baby's nappy and still be in the room with the other two children and so on. Minimum ratios do not work; they do not allow people to have lunch, for example, or do all of the things needed. Case management is flawed because it is based on a business model. We keep saying that we do not want a business model for early years care and education so why do we do case management based on a business model? That is the problem.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Has the association written a critique of case management?

Ms Marian Quinn

We have written a few points on it and can send on more details.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Could Ms Quinn send it to the committee?

Ms Marian Quinn

Yes, that is no problem.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I have been watching proceedings from afar and listening in very attentively. I thank each and every one of our guests for their statements and contributions thus far. I recognise the fundamental role that childcare and childminding services play in our lives. Like Deputy Sherlock, I too have a young family - a two-year-old and a three-and-a-half-year-old - and as a working parent, I rely on childminding services. They are essential in terms of what and our local communities require.

The challenges we have heard about in the sector today, especially from family-run establishments, are concerning. I am sure all the members of this committee have expressed their support and advocacy for continued Government investment into this sector to address the current challenges and to ensure we can build a sustainable future for the sector. This is important. These sessions are an important avenue in trying to get the concerns of the witnesses' organisations built into a report from the committee and thereafter to engage with the Minister on that report.

Maybe I should ask the childhood professionals about balancing the prevention of corporatisation of the sector with ensuring investment is tangible and we get quality improvements in this regard. What is the analysis of the childhood professionals?

An Cathaoirleach

Ms Quinn is indicating.

Ms Marian Quinn

I thank Deputy Dillon. There would need to be a targeted approach. If there were to be a blanket increase to perhaps €100 or whatever, then we know there are some models for which that would prove far more lucrative than to others. We would be concerned about the corporate model in respect of the buying out of small services. That would result in economies of scale but would not necessarily bring an increased scale of quality too. We would have great concerns in this regard.

It must also be mentioned that not every service does ECCE. While a significant majority do so, there are some services that do not because they take the underaged children. We already have providers making decisions, or needing to make decisions, regarding their operational model. If the most viable or profitable aspect is ECCE, then what is already starting to happen, and happened in the past, is the closing of rooms for babies and toddlers. Regarding families wanting and needing to go to work, we know they need to be able to access childcare crèche services for young children. These, however, are the spaces least available. Even now, under the current funding model, without there being any increase, these are the services facing the greatest challenge. These are the services that the majority of educators wish to work in. Regarding the ECCE services, this was a more financially viable model and the wages tended to be higher in those services as well.

What the core funding was trying to do was to equalise things across the board. The higher capitation grant was there only for the preschool, ECCE schemes and for the preschool rooms. It was not there for anything else. This was despite the fact that we had graduates working with babies and toddlers. This situation disincentivised graduates from working with babies and toddlers, even though they might love the work. They would get paid more in the ECCE area because there was a graduate higher capitation rate. I am really worried about this aspect.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I ask the witness to take County Mayo as an example, which has one of the lowest rates of fees in the country. What has been the impact of the fee freeze on the likes of County Mayo, where we have newly-established childcare facilities now gaining a more competitive advantage because they can set the higher rate?

Ms Marian Quinn

An Cathaoirleach

We will have to leave it at that. We have had a really good discussion though and hopefully everyone feels like they got enough time.

As I said, we planned it this way so we would have the Department in next week in order that we could hear all the issues from the representatives organisations first and then have the follow up with the Department officials. Obviously, we will be looking at this as a committee. It has been a while since we got to look at the early years sector because there is so much for us in the Department's remit. So much falls to the committee but it has been great to actually have the few hours to go through it all. I thank everybody for their engagement and their opening statements and for answering the questions.

If any documents were referenced or if the organisations have any further information, we would really appreciate if they could send that on. If there was even a way of sending it on in advance of our meeting next week, that would be really helpful. On that note, I thank everybody. Is it agreed that we publish the opening statements on the Oireachtas website? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 November 2023.

Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate - Tuesday, 7 Nov 2023

Issues Facing the Early Childhood Sector: Discussion

Ms Marian Quinn

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Teresa Heeney

Ms Julie Ahern

Ms Frances Byrne

Dr. Naomi Feely

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Elaine Dunne

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Teresa Heeney

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Julie Ahern

Ms Avril Green

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Frances Byrne

Ms Teresa Heeney

Dr. Naomi Feely

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Teresa Heeney

Ms Frances Byrne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Sonya Duggan

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Anne Clarke

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Frances Byrne

Ms Frances Byrne

Ms Julie Ahern

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Elaine Dunne

Ms Sonya Duggan

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Marian Quinn

Ms Frances Byrne

Ms Frances Byrne

Mr. Darragh O'Connor

Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 2023